HISTORY OF THE WORKS OF CUYIER.* 



By M. Flourens. 



ranslated for the Smithsonian Institution, by C. A. Alexander. 



I. — OP METHOD CONSIDERED IN" ITSELF. — KATIONAL METHODS. — EMPIEICAL 



METHODS. 



Metliod is a part of logic ; it is the approximation of like things, and the sep- 

 aration of things unlike. Hence, there have always been methods, especially in 

 natural history, where the number of objects is so great. It was in vain, then, 

 for Buffon to revolt against methods ; in proportion, as passing from quadrupeds 

 to bird s, he sees the number of species increase, he himself resorts to methodical 

 approximations; he groups together like species, he constitutes genera; "he 

 silently submits," says M. Cuvier, "to the necessity imposed on all of us, of 

 classifying our ideas in order clearly to represent to ourselves their ensemble, their 

 collective import." Aristotle himself had a method, and indeed an excellent one, 

 at least for classes, t He knew that the cetacea are mammiferous | he distin- 

 guishes in animals with white blood, the mollusca, the Crustacea, the insects, &c. § 

 After the revival of letters the learned were content at first with the metliod of 

 Aristotle ; but it was soon found necessary to extend it. 



Natural history always resolves itself into specific objects. Method really aids 

 Bs only in so far as it leads to species ; and since it should lead to species, it is 

 necessary that it should embrace all species. Now, before Linnajus, it was cus- 

 tomary to stop, in several classes, at the genera ; in other classes, while proceed- 

 ing to species, only a few were particularized. Linnseus proposed that method, 

 the distinctive catalogue of beings, should embrace them all ; no species, there- 

 fore, was neglected ; all were studied, independently of their shape, size, relative 

 utility ; all were named. Twenty years after Linnaeus, the number of known 

 beings was quintupled. 



Ou the other hand, specific names did not yet exist, only generic ones. Lin- 

 naeus founded a nomenclature. Each species had two names : a suhstantiix name 

 for the genus, an adjective name for the species. || The name of the species no 



* From the " Histoiro des Travaux de Georo^es Cuvier," by M. Flourens, late perpetual 

 secrcfiiiy of the French Academy of Sciences, &c. 



tSee the fine eulogy of M. Cuvier Iiimself on the principles of Aristotle: "Far be it 

 from us to detract from the glory of the great philosopher whom we recall. We think, on 

 the contrary, that it is necessary to revive his principles, if we would give to natural history 

 all its perfection, and we observe with satisfaction that they are beginning to revive." A 

 siuprising tlnng, surely ! Aristotle had already discovered the great j)i inciples of the science 

 twenty centuries ago ; and to rediscover those principles we must come down to Cuvier. 



X "The dolphin," he says, "has teats, and suckles its young." — Uist. oj Anivuds, Book If. 

 External differences do not, in his t^yes. mask iiUernal resemblances ; he places the serpent, 

 which has no members, by the side ofthf lizard, which has. "The serpent," he says, "en- 

 tirely resembles the lizard, by supposing the latter to be Icngliiened and retrenching its feet." 



vS The strong envelope of the shell, however, imposes on him; and to the four natural 

 classes: rnollusks, Crustacea, insects and zoophytes, he improperly joins that of the testiieca. 

 Still, an attentive perusal of the work of Aristotle shows us a surprising numlier of just 

 conceptions, even in what may be called the anatomy of detail. "The. ear," lie says, " \vm 

 no opening into the brain, but into the palatcof the mouth." — Hist, of Animals, Book [. 

 This was a plain indication of the eustacliiau tube. 



II It is this second name, proper to the species and commonly an adjective, which Linn.-uus 

 calls the trivial name. 



